Feb. 19, 2010 -- As the Defense Department moves away from nuclear weapons as the nation’s sole means of deterrence, it must strengthen its efforts to understand what other actions would keep would-be adversaries in check, according to the two-star officer leading U.S. Strategic Command's global strike directorate.
“We were very good at [understanding] the Soviet Union; we were very aware of their thinking,” Air Force Maj. Gen. Floyd Carpenter told InsideDefense.com. “We are not so good at other countries, I don't think. That intelligence piece is going to be critical and must grow,” he said in a brief interview following a Feb. 18 speech at the Nuclear Deterrence Summit, an industry conference in Alexandria, VA.
His comments come as defense officials wrestle with the question of how -- and if -- terrorist organizations can be deterred. Defense officials have said they need conventional kinetic deterrence capabilities that would allow the United States to respond more moderately to threats, without deploying atomic weapons. In addition, the Pentagon's emerging deterrence concept envisions a role for civilian agencies to “encourage restraint,” “deny benefits” or “impose cost,” Carpenter said, using terms from joint deterrence doctrine.
Without mentioning specific groups or countries, Carpenter said America's enemies today are more “risk-tolerant” than the Soviet Union and the United States were during the Cold War era, when the fear of mutual destruction through overwhelming force kept a fragile balance between the two superpowers.
Still, he argued, there are starting points for crafting a deterrence strategy against all adversaries -- they just need to be found. “All of us human beings have some risk aversion. It might not be the same aversion as you or I have, but that's the point. We need to understand what that point is and work that,” Carpenter told InsideDefense.com.
“They may not be afraid to die for their god, their religion or their country or whatever it might be. But they may have some other aversion” where adversaries cannot accept risk, he added. “I think that's the real point is find out what that is and work on that, as opposed to just say, 'We're going to come kill you if you continue to do that.”
During his speech, however, Carpenter delivered a passionate defense of traditional nuclear deterrence. “I don't know how you can survive in a nuclear world without a nuclear deterrent,” he said when asked by the moderator about the utility of strategic nuclear deterrence in the age of terrorism. “I would be very concerned as a taxpayer if other countries had a credible . . . [ability] to strike the United States, your home town, and we didn't have a response.
“If we’re just going to rely on missile defense or good will or a conventional capability, I would be very concerned,” he added. “And I think you should be very concerned, personally. I know we are friendlier today than we were 25 years ago. I guess I'm not that . . . trusting.”
-- Sebastian Sprenger
21902010_feb19b
21902010_feb19b